President Obama’s Super PAC “Priorities USA” Launches Another Round of Attacks on Mitt Romney

After seeing the reaction to my piece on the anti-Romney bias emanating from many influential places from a few days ago, it’s even more obvious that we have a lot of work to do. Far too many people don’t realize what seems so obvious to us… that President Obama and the Democrats fear Mitt Romney more than any other candidate the GOP has in this election as the case was also in 2008.

Anyone who doesn’t believe me should just follow the money. The Democratic National Committee spent more money trying to dig up dirt on Mitt Romney during the 2008 primaries than they did on any other republican candidate. This time around it’s almost comical how much democrats are going out of their way to not attack other GOP candidates and instead focusing their smear efforts exclusively on Mitt Romney.

Today’s actions by President Obama’s Super PAC provided even more proof that Mitt Romney is the republican that scares democrats most. This anti-Romney ad buy is $100,000 and it’s far from the first anti-Romney attack ad President Obama’s Super PAC has produced. The continued paid attacks this early in the election illustrate a level of desperation from the Obama administration that makes sense considering President Obama’s record of accomplishment is so weak.

Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul responds with: “More middle-class Americans have lost their jobs under President Obama than any president in modern history. While Mitt Romney is focused on his jobs and economic plan, which will provide relief for the middle-income taxpayers, President Obama and his cronies are worried about their own jobs. It is no surprise since President Obama cannot run on his failed record that his political allies resort to false and negative attacks on Mitt Romney.”

While Gov. Romney and President Obama both know who the strongest GOP contender is, too many radio hosts, bloggers, and media members are creating false narratives and chasing fake stories. Rush Limbaugh went so far today as to read an entire letter on air designed to make people think Gov. Romney’s campaign was behind the leak of the current Herman Cain controversy. Fortunately, Hot Air saw through this ploy and presents a more likely source for the leak. Even Herman Cain’s own campaign is blaming an adviser to Rick Perry for leaking the story. Furthermore, a pollster for one of Rick Perry’s Super PACs is pouring fuel on the fire in an effort to end Cain’s campaign. Rush’s listeners should be outraged that Mr. Limbaugh would stoop so low as to pick up on an obvious smear like this and present it the way he did. Just like with my Red State/Free Republic piece, the point of this piece is to increase awareness of some misinformation and to hopefully start to discover the motivations of the various parties attacking Gov. Romney.

I’m starting to see a lot of caparisons between what happened in 2008 and what is happening this time around. The groups and individuals filling each role have changed in some instances, but the spirit of the final installments of Article VI’s blog about the 2008 election seem even more poignant now.

Clowns to the Left of Mitt

Jokers to the Right

Stuck in the Middle With You

UPDATE: Gov. Tim Pawlenty refutes the bias against Gov. Romney presented this time by Fox News’ Megyn Kelly. I’m just glad someone as competent as Tim Pawlenty was present to rebut these assertions because these types of claims often go unchecked. Warning: Megyn calls Mitt stagnant, not the most conservative, accuses Mitt of having an inability to connect with voters, and pretty much uses all of the talking points coming out of the DNC.


Finally, I want to thank Emily Schultheis and Tim Mak from the Politico as well as Ben Smith, Fox Nation, David French from Patheos.com, our friends from Why Romney, and also Mike Sage for helping this story gain more traction outside of our normal circles of influence. If we can keep this up, we will start to tear down the walls of bias built by the malicious or ignorant hands referenced in these posts.

CNN/Tea Party Pres. Debate: Favorable Reviews for Mitt Romney

GOP presidential candidates appear on stage at the CNN/Tea Party debate last night in Tamp, FL. 9/12/11 (photo by David and Holloway/CNN)

What a night for Mitt Romney at the GOP CNN/Tea Party debate in Tampa, Florida! He more than held his own and by some early accounts – won – in a crowd that clearly had a likin’ for Rick Perry (although Perry faded in the last half; the crowd didn’t like his gardasil vaccine mandate and he received boo’s on his immigration stance.)

The reviews…

The Weekly Standard – Fred Barnes (my favorite article)

Romney’s Win

If a debate more than four months before the first vote is cast can influence the outcome of a presidential nomination race, the debate last night among eight Republicans should aid Mitt Romney’s candidacy. Seldom has there been as clear a winner.

Romney was crisp and succinct, prepared and focused, and aggressive in going after his chief rival for the GOP presidential nomination, Texas governor Rick Perry, when he needed to be. Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, showed once again that he’s a far better candidate now than he was four years ago.

He did well in these instances, among others: spelling out the differences between the health care plan he championed in Massachusetts and Obamacare; explaining the problem with the Fair Tax is that it gives short shrift to the middle class; pointing out the built-in advantages Perry has in Texas in governing successfully; and refraining from boasting, except to say that “if America needs a turnaround, that’s what I do.”

Romney challenged Perry on Social Security at the outset of the debate, which was held in Florida and billed as a collaboration of CNN and various Tea Party organizations. It was Tea Party people who asked the questions, mostly better ones than a panel of reporters or pundits would probably have asked.

The first question was on Social Security, which Perry has called a Ponzi scheme and a failure. Romney has suggested Perry’s view makes him unelectable.

When Perry didn’t back down from those comments, Romney jumped in with questions, and host Wolf Blitzer let him proceed. Romney asked Perry about his recent book in which he said Social Security is unconstitutional and might be better run by the states.

Perry didn’t have a ready answer, or at least not a persuasive one. Nor did he offer the one thing that I expected from him in the debate: a Perry plan for fixing Social Security’s looming insolvency. [...]
[...]
Back to Romney. The candidates were asked what they’d bring to the White House – what thing. Romney gave the best answer after repeating the Winston Churchill quotation that America always does the right thing after trying everything else first. He said he’d bring the bust of Churchill, sent away by President Obama, back to the White House.

The Daily Beast - Howard Kurtz

[…] Romney seized control of the tempo in what may have been his strongest performance so far. He seemed at ease taking the fight to Perry and got the better of their heated exchanges. The former Massachusetts governor was clearly trying to position himself as the reassuring grownup on stage and Perry as the fearmonger.

Let’s unpack their verbal clash and see what it tells us about each man and his strategy.

Perry tried to clean up his mess from last week’s MSNBC debate, when he attacked Social Security as a Ponzi scheme without suggesting how he might fix it. This time he offered those near retirement age a “slam-dunk guarantee” they’d get their benefits before hailing his own “courage” in criticizing the ailing system.

Romney didn’t miss a beat, calling Perry’s Ponzi language “over the top” and “frightful” before delivering his strongest punch: that the Texan had called Social Security unconstitutional and “not something the federal government ought to be involved in.”

The Fix (The Washington Post) – Chris Cillizza

WINNERS

Mitt Romney: Four debates. Four times Romney has wound up in the winner’s circle. It’s not a coincidence. Romney proved yet again that he is the best debater in this field with another solid performance in which he effectively downplayed his liabilities on health care and accentuated his strengths on jobs and the economy. Romney played more offense than he has in previous debates, taking the fight to Texas Gov. Rick Perry on Social Security. He also got a major assist from Rep. Michele Bachmann (Minn.) and former senator Rick Santorum (Pa.), both of whom relentlessly bashed Perry. But that’s how debates work. Romney also, smartly, ignored the tea party audience in the hall — who occasionally booed him — and focused his messaging on the much broader audience of people watching the debate on CNN.

More good reading after the fold…

(more…)

Who Won the MSNBC/Politico Reagan Debate? UPDATE: Video Added

Here’s how I rank tonight’s debate performances:

1. Mitt Romney
2. Newt Gingrich
3. Ron Paul
4. Michele Bachmann
5. Rick Santorum
6. Herman Cain
7. Rick Perry
8. Jon Huntsman

Welcome to the race Rick Perry. I’m guessing he wasn’t expecting as rough of a night as it was. He tried to deflect some of the devastating points made by others by his troubling record bu saying he felt like a pinata, but he ain’t seen nothing yet. He decided to foolishly throw the first punch in the debate while Newt and Mitt tried to keep the focus on President Obama. Mitt defended himself like he should, but he never threw the first punch. With ads running against Perry by the Bachmann super pac and Ron Paul’s campaign right before the beginning of the debate, Mitt was able to stand back and let the light shine on all the cracks in Gov. Perry’s facade.

I’m not quite sure Gov. Rick Perry realizes how badly he got hurt tonight. So many topics were brought up that are going to haunt the rest of his campaign. It actually reminded me of the Five Point Palm Exploding Heart technique from Kill Bill where the person can take a few steps after the technique, but then they just collapse. I don’t know when Rick Perry will collapse, but tonight might have been a fatal blow because Rick Perry is a fatally flawed candidate that could win before the internet age perhaps, but not today with a more informed electorate.

VIDEO of entire debate:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

If anyone wants to learn more about the other candidates or has any information to add, check out the what we’ve got so far.

UPDATE:

Just look at all the people on-the-record at Politico saying Romney won:
Former state Sen. Jeff Smith
David Biespiel
Eileen Shields-West
Richard M. Skinner
H. Whitt Kilburn

UPDATE 2
Gov. Romney was on the Sean Hannity radio show and he correctly pointed out that the GOP “Will Be Obliterated” If Candidate Against Social Security Is Nominated. Also, it’s been reported on Mitt Romney Radio that “Mitt Romney” was the 4th most search term on the internet after the debate! How sweet is that!?

‘Restore Our Future’ Pro-Romney Super PAC Rakes in $12.3 Million

Here’s a piece of good news to start the week…

Restore Our Future, a Super PAC created to help support Mitt Romney (and combat Obama Super PACS) has raised a big, fat, wad of cash for The Gov.

The prolific group formed by former Romney aids, for the first six months of this year, has raised a whopping $12.3 million ($12.231,700 to be exact):

Bloomberg

A political action committee that supports former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney in the Republican presidential primary raised $12.3 million from mostly big-money donors in the first half of this year.

[...]

The political action committee is an independent group that can run ads to bolster Romney’s bid and may not coordinate with his campaign. Its treasurer is Charles R. Spies, who was Romney’s general counsel in the 2008 Republican primary. Its board of directors includes Carl Forti, who was political director for Romney’s primary campaign three years ago.

Restore Our Future is one of two “Super PACs,” independent political committees that take unlimited contributions, that have been created to help a presidential candidate. Former White House officials have set up a similar organization to promote President Barack Obama’s re-election.

The Romney-friendly committee could give him an advantage in the Republican primary by running ads attacking his opponents, which would allow Romney to conserve resources for his campaign.

Some of the donors: W. Spann LLC of New York, F8 LLC and Eli Publishing Inc. of Utah, J.W Marriott and Richard Marriott of Marriott International Inc, Louis M. Bacon of Moore Capital Management in New York, and John Paulson hedge fund manager. Another substantial, interesting donor was a homebuilder based in Texas – Bob Perry – who in the past, has donated money to Rick Perry (no relation).

More great news… Restore Our Future was very careful with expenditures:

The PAC spent just $22,329.50, money that went to business licensing, legal fees and insurance.

We’re proud of the support Restore Our Future has received from across the country,” said Charlie Spies, the group’s treasurer.

These donors recognize Mitt Romney is the most experienced and qualified candidate to challenge President Obama’s record of out-of-control, big government spending which has led our country to a historic $14 trillion debt and near double-digit unemployment. As evidenced by our report, we will continue to keep costs to a minimum to ensure that our donors funds go to accomplish our main mission, helping Mitt Romney defeat President Obama.”

(emphasis added)

Maggie Haberman, senior political reporter for POLITICO, also wrote an article about the ‘pro-Romney super-PAC filings’. She characterized Jonathan Martin and Ken Vogel as “pouring through” the Super PAC’s records to ferret out who the donors were. After stating the number of donors, Haberman further nuanced her article with a quote from Martin/Vogel: “Other givers were even harder to unmask.”

Is Restore Our Future engaged in masked activity?

No.

Super PACS are independent expenditure groups allowed to raise unlimited amounts of corporate or union money, as well as receive donations from individuals. In January 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court lifted a century-old limit on the amounts corporations, labor unions, or individuals can raise for elections – for or against a candidate – as long as their activity is independent of the candidate and campaign.

Some PACS reveal donors, such as the House Majority PAC. Others are organized under section 501(c)4 which doesn’t require donors to be revealed. Traditional PACS such as political parties and candidates’ campaigns do make public those who donate. Restore Our Future is FEC-registered which means all donors are disclosed.

On June 29, 2011 ‘Priorities USA’, an Obama Super PAC, created by former White House advisors Sean Sweeny and Bill Burton, released a multi-state ad targeting Republicans. The ad aired in battleground states: Virginia, Iowa, Colorado, North Carolina, and Florida:

“We are Americans. We know right from wrong. And we know the ads blaming President Obama for the economy are politics at its worse,” the ad says[...] “The Republicans have opposed economic reforms at every turn.” [...]

(my emphasis)

‘Priorities USA’ wears masks does not disclose donors.

Maybe resident Politico detectives Jonathan Martin and Ken Vogel will dig in Obama’s Super PAC ‘Priorities USA’ (and sister PAC ‘Priorities USA Action’ which is required to reveal donors). Then, along with Maggie Haberman, perhaps the three of them will have more to write about.

Restore Our Future (exactly what Romney will do) deserves a big, fat, THANK YOU!

► Jayde Wyatt

A Healthcare Analogy About Romneycare and Obamacare

Supporters of Mitt Romney are no strangers to the attacks made on our candidate by President Obama’s surrogates and even fellow conservatives on the subject of “RomneyCare”. The accusations are all too familiar to us;

“There’s no difference between RomneyCare and ObamaCare”
“RomneyCare is socialism!”
“Romney is the architect/father of ObamaCare”
“It’s Mitt Romney’s fault that we have ObamaCare”

MRC’s very own Dr. Jeff Fuller has written an excellent series explaining the major policy differences between MassCare (the actual “RomneyCare”) and ObamaCare, and why Governor Romney’s health care reforms in Massachusetts were anything but socialist. So with the more difficult and technical aspects of MassCare already covered, I’d like to tackle the broader claims that Mitt Romney is to blame for the idea of ObamaCare and that Mitt is the father and architect of ObamaCare.

These attacks can be exposed as inaccurate and completely false. Let’s first address those who say that Mitt Romney is to blame for ObamaCare. I feel this can best be explained away through a simple story:

Let’s say that you, the reader, live in a town. This town has fifty families or households residing in it. Out of the blue, your kids start ignoring their homework and doing other activities instead: texting, playing video games, chatting on their favorite political website (MittRomneyCentral.com), or whatever it might be. As a responsible parent, you see the need to create a plan to get them to do their homework. You know what ultimately motivates your children, so the plan you institute begins to work and your kids start completing their homework again. It’s not perfect, but it works 98% of the time.

Meanwhile, the mayor of your town had actually desired to pass a law on how families enforce homework completion for quite some time. Without talking to you or asking you about what worked and what didn’t in your plan, the mayor passes an ordinance requiring all families to use methods similar to the ones you developed for your kids. He also throws in a bunch of other invasive requirements as well. Next, the mayor starts publicly praising the plan you created for your home and says that it was the inspiration for his law. Naturally, many of the people in the town are angry about being forced to adopt the new methods and are looking for someone to blame. Who should they rightfully be upset with about this new law, you or the mayor?

It seems obvious that the mayor is the one to blame here. You, as the parent who initiated the original plan for your own household, never advocated that your plan be used for the entire town, nor were you consulted by the mayor before he brought about the new law. Why should your fellow townsfolk blame you, regardless of if the plans had similarities or not? It would be unjustified for them to do so. Yet this is precisely what some of our fellow conservative friends are doing when they blame Mitt Romney for ObamaCare.

In case you hadn’t yet noticed the correlation, the mayor in the story represents President Obama and the new town ordinance is ObamaCare. Mitt Romney is represented by you, the parent, and your plan to get your kids to do their homework is MassCare.

Just as it would be unfair to blame the parent in our story for the new town ordinance, it is equally unfair and illogical to blame Mitt Romney for ObamaCare. Regardless of any similarities that exist between the two laws, Governor Romney strongly opposes a Federal takeover of health care and was never consulted by President Obama or Democrats while ObamaCare was being crafted.

Another line of attack that some like to take is to label Romney as the father and/or architect of ObamaCare. Let’s quickly follow that line of thinking to its logical conclusion: if Mitt Romney hadn’t signed MassCare into law, we would not have ended up with ObamaCare. Do any conservatives honestly believe that if it weren’t for MassCare we wouldn’t have ObamaCare today? That idea is absurd and has a very shortsighted view of our political past. A full 13 years before MassCare was signed into law, the Democrats on Capital Hill contemplated a complete reform of the American health care system. Many of you remember HillaryCare, the attempted Federal government takeover of health care in 1993, concocted by Hillary Clinton.

That attempt was ultimately defeated, but it’s clear that the goal was never far out of mind. The proof is that the very next time the Democrats had control of both houses of Congress and the White House they tried again and were successful. They did not need inspiration from MassCare to create ObamaCare. The desire to reform health care on the Federal level had already existed for nearly 20 years and Democrats were anxious for the opportunity to try again.

The blame for ObamaCare lies squarely on the shoulders of Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, President Obama, and the Democrat majority that passed it. Mitt Romney did not inspire, design, or support this monstrosity, and a logical and reasonable look at the subject should allow people to come to the same conclusion. Let’s set our sights on the ones who are truly responsible, not a convenient political target.

Mitt Romney (Patriots Fan) Traveled to Israel with NY Jets Owner?!

You heard it here, folks. Just before the Jets beat the Patriots out of the NFL playoffs, their owner was Mitt Romney’s travel buddy. POLITICO reports:

New York Jets owner Woody Johnson, the Johnson & Johnson heir and a prominent support of Mitt Romney, traveled to Israel with Romney last week after his team beat the Colts in Indianapolis, a person familiar with the trip said.

Johnson joined Romney in meetings Wednesday and Thursday with Israeli officials, then flew back to the States in time to see the Jets beat the Patriots Sunday.

Patriots Fan, Mitt Romney. Cred: Life.com

NY Jets Owner, Woody Johnson.

It’s worth noting that Johnson is a former McCain guy who put together a fundraiser that brought in $7 million on a single night for a McCain’s camp, which at that time was in dire need of a financial boost.

Another interesting side-note: Woody Johnson was on a conference call with other deep-pocketed Romney supporters back in November. On the call, Johnson made a point that many, many former McCain and Giuliani supporters in the Tri-state area were ready and willing to jump behind a Romney bid — they just needed the go-ahead from Mitt and they’d be ready to open the Rolodex and make some calls. To which Mitt graciously replied something along these lines: “Wow. That’s great… I appreciate that.”


-Aaron Gundy- Follow @AaronGundy on Twitter

Does Mitt Romney Want to “Stop” Sarah Palin?

Unsinkable

Much ado this weekend when Politico publishes a story about the GOP establishment making the take-down of Sarah Palin the number one priority. The story claims as its sources unnamed advisers and … no one else. My reaction is quite the same as Sarah Palin’s: this story is total bunk.

I perceive this as a clear attempt of some media members to place wedges between otherwise like-minded conservatives. This is meant to tear apart the GOP and I will not bite. Unfortunately, via Twitter, I see some Palin supporters who are angry at Romney and have bought into this ploy. In Sarah Palin’s interview (which is now posted on the Politico article) she is wise in not giving credence to the story.

Mitt Romney is not biting either.

Laura Ingraham is discussing this story today and just had Romney on as a guest. I was glad to see that this topic came up in their interview. I’ve embedded the audio in a YouTube clip below. The discussion about the Politico piece starts at the 5:30 mark. (My video is not working yet, but I see the Romney team has also posted some audio, so I’ll embed theirs instead.)

Summation of Mitt’s response:

  • Story is nonsense.
  • “I know Sarah Palin well – if she wants to run no one (the establishment) can stop her.”
  • If Palin did run she would great addition to the primary process.

Governor Romney also noted that voter intensity for conservatives is extremely high this election because of the Tea Party. Nationwide this is true, and we will largely have them to thank for the many conservative victories we will enjoy tomorrow.

~Nate Gunderson

Mitt Romney Adding Muscle to 2010 Races “At a Much Higher Level than Anyone Else”

Romney Adds Conservative Muscle to 2010 Races (Photo by Michael Fagans / The Californian)

I just got done reading a very well-written piece from POLITICO that gives a detailed summary of Mitt Romney’s party building efforts, (and his apparent 2012 groundwork strategies). The article is long, so I’ll just post a few intro paragraphs and some of the more interesting blurbs. I encourage you, though, to click through to the original article and read it in it’s entirety.

Without further delay, enjoy the read:

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is grinding through the 2010 campaign state by state and district by district, adhering to a go-everywhere, never-say-no campaign schedule that will have recorded visits to 30 states before Election Day.

It’s an approach that sets him apart from other 2012 prospects in its plodding, comprehensive, Nixon-in-’66-like pace.

Romney’s schedule is so all-inclusive that it barely looks like he’s picking his targets. In just the past few weeks, he’s campaigned for Georgia Sen. Johnny Isakson and gubernatorial candidate Nathan Deal. He made a Western campaign trip that included stops for Idaho Gov. Butch Otter, Utah Gov. Gary Herbert, Nevada House candidate Joe Heck and gubernatorial nominee Brian Sandoval, among others. He also made a trip to Florida on Oct. 1 to boost Rick Scott — who won an upset victory over state Attorney General Bill McCollum, whom Romney campaigned for back in June — in the GOP gubernatorial primary.

Romney’s spreading his donations around widely, too: As of Sept. 30, he’d given $940,000 through his Free and Strong America PAC to 188 congressional candidates, two dozen Senate candidates and 20 Republicans running for governor, according to financial information obtained by POLITICO.

Much of that time and money is spent on party-building activities in states like Rhode Island, Maryland and Kansas — places of dubious value to most presidential candidates.

But by establishing himself as a force in states beyond the early-primary circuit of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada, Romney’s cementing his role as a party leader and laying the groundwork for a potential nomination fight that lasts well past the first round of small-state elections.

It’s a strategy that recalls former President Richard Nixon’s slow climb back to power after he lost the presidency in 1960 and the California governor’s race two years later: Gearing up to run for president in 1968, Nixon simply outcampaigned his competitors with a frenzy of activity in the 1966 midterms.

Some interesting highlights:

“He’s using his PAC resources to create and cultivate relationships significantly down the primary calendar,” said one GOP consultant aligned with a potential Romney rival. “My hunch is that the thesis is that if it’s Romney versus someone else, which I think a lot of people think this race will winnow to, he wants to have the financial power and depth of relationships to be a candidate that endures.”

On Romney’s PAC:

“They understand the goal of fundraisers is to maximize contributions and minimize costs, so they don’t demand private planes and other costly things that legally must be paid for by the campaigns,” said Bob Honold, who handles incumbent retention for the National Republican Congressional Committee. “These midterms are all about jobs and the economy — topics right in Romney’s wheelhouse — so he’s perfect with big donors but also on the stump for members and candidates.”

On Romney’s Operation:

“I think his operation is, unquestionably, very strong,” said one Republican state lawmaker who has met with Romney and is undecided about whom to support in 2012. “He’s doing all the things, at a much higher level than anybody out there at this point.”

On the Early Primary States:

Romney’s not ignoring the early states: At the beginning of this month, he endorsed 38 candidates in Iowa and gave a total of $41,500 to their campaigns. He’s scheduled to visit the first-in-the-nation caucus state at the end of October, and, last month, he headlined a major state GOP event in New Hampshire.

On Mitt’s efforts in South Carolina:

“He’s done everything he possibly could.”

Read More…

Romney Statement on the Ground Zero Mosque

Ground Zero NYC - proposed mosque location

Ben Smith of Politico rounds up the statements of potential 2012ers regarding the building of a mosque at Ground Zero. Among the entries is a statement from Mitt Romney’s official spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom:

Governor Romney opposes the construction of the mosque at Ground Zero. The wishes of the families of the deceased and the potential for extremists to use the mosque for global recruiting and propaganda compel rejection of this site.

Very short and precisely to the point, in expected Romney fashion. And, of course, he is exactly right.

Extended info on the Ground Zero Mosque (the Cordoba House) can be found at Wikipedia.

~Nate G.

UPDATE by Jayde:
Raheel Raza, a Muslim woman born in Pakistan, now residing in Canada, who is the author of Their Jihad, Not My Jihad, was a guest on Bill O’Reilly’s The Factor last night. She voiced her opposition to the Ground Zero mosque:

Raza:

Building a mosque or a place of worship in particular spot across the street from Ground Zero is a slap in the face upon Americans. I mean, New Yorkers have experienced this pain, and the people who are behind this project are themselves Americans and New Yorkers. I can’t begin to imagine how they would even conceive an idea that building a mosque there, which is an exclusive place of prayer for Muslims, would in any way build tolerance and respect.

Mayor Bloomberg and other bleeding-heart white liberals like him don’t understand the battle that we moderate Muslims are faced with in terms of confronting radical Islam and Islamization and political Islam in North America, which has only grown since 9/11 because of political correctness and people because of their politically-invested agenda not speaking out against issues like this.

Bill O’Reilly complimented Raza for expressing “the most articulate indictment of this whole crazy thing that I have ever heard.”

Mitt Ramping Up for 2012?

Allahpundit poses this question over at Hot Air. He bases this question on a blog posting by Ben Smith over at Politico indicating that Matt Rhodes, one of Mitt’s top staffers from the 2008 team, has taken over the Executive Director spot at Mitt’s Free and Strong America PAC.

I think most of us have been anticipating Mitt running again in 2012 (hence this blog). This development serves to reinforce our sense of anticipation. I am very excited about this prospect as I continue to believe that Mitt would be a great President, and that we need him now more than ever.

What I am not excited about, however, is the intra-party strife which will certainly arise from the primary season. By contrast, Allah is licking his chops over the possibility of a Mitt vs. Sarah vs. Huck cage match:

Just from the perspective of blogworthy content, I’m thrilled. A Huck vs. Palin race would be fascinating, but having Mitt in the mix all but guarantees a “centrist elites vs. populist conservatives” storyline for the nomination. Can’t. Wait.

Centrist?! The emerging meme of Mitt as some squishy “Obama in GOP clothing” centrist has been showing up more and more frequently. Having spent most of the 2008 primary season on the front lines of the blogosphere debunking false accusations and willful misrepresentations, I am dreading the coming onslaught from the mainstream media and whomever the primary opponents will ultimately be. Not because it is not a worthy cause, but rather, fighting these battles cause a type of pain akin to hitting your head against a wall over and over again with nothing to show for it (at least that’s what it feels like sometimes).

There will be plenty of time to make our case and debunk the myths. For now, let’s steel ourselves for what we know is coming. The time isn’t quite here yet, but it looks like it may be coming and we’re one step closer today.